THE PERILS OF OBEDIENCE

Answer

The Perils of Obedience

Stanly Milgram in the Perils of Obedience indicates that obedience is a fundamental social life element as an individual can consider. According to Milgram, a system of authority is a necessity of all communal existence. It is only an individual dwelling in solitude that is not forced to respond, with resistance or submission, to other individuals' instructions (Milgram 41). In his work, Stanley Milgram indicates that compliance is a deeply embedded characteristic tendency for some individuals, certainly a compelling urge superseding guidance in ethics, compassion, and moral conduct (Milgram 41).  Milgram set up an experiment to evaluate the legal and philosophical aspects of obedience. The investigation incorporated two people, a learner and a teacher. The experiment aimed to assess the level of pain an ordinary individual can impose on another individual basically because an experimental scientist or authoritative figure orders him/her. This paper seeks to identify some specific individuals in the experiment and explain their actions in the experiments.

The experiment incorporated different subjects, but ones who cannot go unnoticed are Gretchen Brandt, Fred Pozi, and Morris Braverman. Gretchen Brandt's actions are described as firm and resolute human throughout the experiment. On various occasions when the learner complained, she would “coolly” enquire from the experimenter if she is to continue “shall I continue” (Milgram 43). When instructed to continue, she would proceed with doubts. At some point, she stopped following the orders from the experimenter after noticing that learner was experiencing too much pain. “Well, I’am sorry, I don’t think we should continue” (Milgram 43). Observing the situation, Brandit refused to continue with the experiment because she possessed empathy and moral conduct. She felt it was wrong continuing since the man had informed them of his heart conditions “He has heart conditions, I am sorry. He told you that before” (Milgram 43). By taking her stand not to continue, this presents disobedience, a rational and straightforward deed. 

The other individual is Fred Pozi. Unlike Brandt, Fred Pozi proceeded with the experiment regardless of his empathy and moral conduct. He obeyed the experimenter’s instructions despite not being comfortable with the pain the learner was experiencing. Fred Pozi was mainly worried about who will take responsibility for any harm that the learner encounters. At some point, he asks the experimenter, "You accept all responsibility?" (Milgram 47).  On some occasions, Pozi demonstrates empathy by asking the experimenter to check on the learner after he had stopped screaming, “Don’t you think you should look on him, please?” (Milgram 47). However, Pozi continued with the experiment since he was obeying the experimenter’s instructions regardless of his thoughts regarding the situation.  

The third individual in the experiment with astonishing characters is Morris Braverman. Described as an intelligent and concerned man, Braverman took pleasure in obeying the experimenter's instructions. At some point, he is seen telling the learner with confidence, “Mr. Wallace your silence has to be considered as wring a wrong answer” (Milgram 47). He is laughing as the learner experiences shock pains. Conclusively, besides obeying the instructions, Braverman continued with the experiment since he seemed to find pleasure in punishing others or watching them experience pain. On the other hand, Gretchen Brandt refused to continue since she possessed empathy and moral conduct. Fred Pozi proceeded since he was obeying orders.

Works Cited

Milgram, Stanley. "The Perils of Obedience." (1994).41-53.

17.QUESTION

What role did the United States play in the Mexican Independence and Revolution in the 19th Century?    

500-word essay answering the question of what role did the US played during the Mexican Revolution in the 19th Century? Must identify 2 sources.

ANSWER

Role of United States in the Mexican Revolution

             In the 19^th century, the Americans got involved in the Mexican Revolution immensely. The involvement was first contradictory since they were first supporting them and later renouncing the Mexican regime between 1910 and1920. The U.S. involvement was driven by their own political and economic reasons. For instance, the U.S. generally supported those in leadership positions and could withhold their political recognitions. For economic reasons, the united states had many capital-intensive projects in Mexico which they wanted to protect from being brought down due to violence. Additionally, they aimed at limiting immigration of people into their shores due to violence caused by the revolution. This would adversely interfere with their economic ambitions. This short essay will analyze the roles the United States during the Mexican revolution of the 19^th century.

            The activities of the United States during the Mexican civil war in the 19^th century were of great importance to the Mexican government. For instance, it supported the anti-reelections of Francisco 1 movement agreed with Bernardo Reyes and Felix Diaz. In 1909, both Mexico and U.S. presidents met in Ciudada Juarez with the primary aim of threating the Mexican military of their intention to take part in the war in case the lives of the U.S. nationals living Mexico, as well as property were at risk during to the revolution. In order to prepare for the intervention, President Taft sent troops the U.S.-Mexico border, although he did not instruct them to get involved fully. Further, He sent troops to inhabit Veracruz in 1914 in a northern Mexico with the aim of capturing Pancho Vila although the attempt failed.

            The United States supplied arms to Orozco during the Madero presidency. When Orozco lost, however, the United States was aware of the intention to overthrow president Madero by Bernardo Reyes and Felix Diaz. This resulted in the U.S. officials supporting Reyes-Diaz rebellion as they knew the U.S. ambassador, Henry Lane Wilson, was aware that Huerta could protect the interests of Americans more (Horne).

            Nonetheless, the U.S. involvement in the Mexican revolution transformed drastically after Woodrow Wilson became the president. He undermined Huerta’s government. This resulted in the Anti-Huerta forces, leading to his resignation in July 1914. A civil war broke out when General Venustiano Carranza who was a follower of Madero started a new revolt in the North. During this war, an American officer was arrested in Mexico, and this angered the U.S officials, they demanded for an apology, which was not respected by the Mexicans. The United States revenged by seizing the customs house at Veracruz in a pitched battle which caused 400 deaths of the Mexicans (Horne). During this period of Veracruz  occupation, the trade of trade of arms to Mexico was officially stopped by the United nations officials. However, they continued their supply in Carranza. After the United Nation troops left later, they asked Villa to appoint someone to take over, although all his trusted officials were far away. Therefore, the city was handled over to Carranza.

            In conclusion, the United States did not fully participate in the Mexican revolution. The roles they played in the revolution were mainly for their economic and political interests.

.